Legal scope, structure and design of the 2015 agreement

The scope, structure and design of the 2015 agreement should be consistent with a 1.5ºC global carbon budget with high likelihood of success, including targets and actions within an equitable framework that provides the financial, technology and capacity building support to countries with low capacity. It should be serious about ensuring sufficient support for dealing with the unavoidable impacts of climate change. It should be built on, developing and improving the rules already agreed under the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention including transparency through common and accurate accounting and effective compliance processes, respecting the principles of equity. The form of the 2015 agreement should be a fair, ambitious and legally binding protocol.

Kyoto Protocol as a basis for the ADP

The Kyoto Protocol provides a good basis for future Protocol, its rules have been tested and should be improved and built upon. Existing elements of the Kyoto Protocol that provide a basis for the new Protocol include:

· Long-term viability: the KP provides a framework that can be updated for each 5-year commitment period, while maintaining its essential elements

· Top down approach, setting an overall objective, an aggregate goal, for developed countries, allowing appropriate consideration of the science, with comparability of effort between countries established through their respective targets (Article 3.1)

· A system of 5-year commitment periods, with comparability of effort measured against a common base year allowing for reasonable cycles of review linked to the IPCC reports and for comparability of effort (Articles 3.1 and 3.7). A commitment regime under the new 2015 agreement should set at least two 5-year commitment periods, so that there are clear consequences in the already-agreed second period for failure to comply with the first 5-year target, and so that a next set of two 5-year targets is in place before the first 5-year period expires. The system should include an adjustment procedure similar to the adjustment procedure under Article 2.9 of the Montreal Protocol that is restricted to increasing ambition. This adjustment procedure should allow both unilateral real increases in ambition by a country and for a ratcheting up of all countries resulting from an adequacy review.

· Monitoring, review, and international verification system (Articles, 5,7,8 and associated decisions)

· Compliancemechanism composed of two tracks – facilitative and enforcement (Article 18). Compliance with the new 2015 legally binding outcome will depend in large part on effective *domestic* compliance processes, which can be facilitated by sharing of domestic best practices in compliance design. This will in turn facilitate better compliance with international obligations.

· Basket approach to GHGs, and the ability to list new gases and classes of gases (Annex A)

· Use of Global Warming Potentials (GWP) to allow comparability of the impacts of different gases on global warming (Article 5.3)

The Equity Reference Framework

Equity is back on the negotiating table, and this is no surprise. Climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC were never going to succeed unless they faced the challenge of “equitable access to sustainable development.” Unless they faced, more precisely, the equity challenge of not just holding to a 2°C or even 1.5°C-compliant global emission budget but also supporting sustainable development and adaptation. These are the preconditions of any successful climate transition.

We thank you and Parties for having a very focused session and urge the work to continue forward with the same motivation and attention.

Nevertheless going forward,

Parties must ensure that climate policies encompassing agriculture include considerations and safeguards that protect and promote food security, biodiversity, equitable access to resources, the right to food, animal welfare, and the rights of indigenous peoples and local populations, while promoting poverty reduction and climate adaptation.

The design of the framework for various approaches and new market-based mechanism must be based on the lessons learned from existing mechanisms. These mechanisms and framework will function under the convention and therefore have to be consistent with the rules and requirements of the convention. Using such mechanisms to meet emissions targets requires a strict accounting framework and increased mitigation ambition.

Lastly, the compromise on MRV provides a lesson for other streams, but the toothless safeguards reporting gives no assurance that safeguards will be implemented. The outcome on drivers is encouraging, but all parties must be clearly obligated to act, and the language on livelihoods not only contradicts the science but also threatens the involvement of indigenous peoples in REDD+.

Thank you chairs. I’m speaking on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

We welcome the opportunity to be present in this workshop and we would like to share our views on how to approach the issue of result-based finance for REDD+.

While we understand that there are many discussions that are taking place in other bodies and groups under the UNFCCC with respect to the issue of finance, we believe that Parties here can start shaping a results-based mechanism for REDD+. Therefore, Parties can start focusing in:

1. Talking about the modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions for REDD+, despite the sources of funding

2. Parties should focus in establishing a mechanism that enables support for REDD+ countries that have met successfully the requirements established in the Cancun Agreements, including safeguards.

3. The design elements of such a mechanism should ensure environmental integrity, through the establishment of registries and reserves to avoid double counting and addressing risks of reversals.

4. Parties should discuss the relationship between reference levels and the access to payments.

5. Discussions here and towards Warsaw should promote equity by ensuring adequate incentives for countries with less capacity as well as countries with significant carbon stocks but lower deforestation rates, while ensuring the integrity of the climate system.

6. Finally, Parties should aim for transparency and efficiency, avoiding creating mechanisms with high transactions costs.

Chairs, are you planning to ask for submissions on these matters in preparation to the second workshop that the Work Program under the COP is considering? If so, we as observers will be happy to share our ideas.

Reaffirming the unwavering commitment of parties to keep global average temperature increase well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and the continuum approach between mitigation, adaptation, loss & damage and finance that is required to ensure equity before 2020.

Reaffirming the urgency to address the current imbalance in mitigation and adaptation finance – in light of recent studies showing the adaptation and loss and damage costs in developing countries will very likely be well in excess of US$100 billion per year by 2020.

Reaffirming the need to raise mitigation ambition levels between now and 2020, and achieving emission reductions on the order of 8-13 Gigatonnes of emissions in the pre-2020 period, beyond existing commitments and actions registered under the UNFCCC.

Supporting the authoritative assessments demonstrating that staying well below 2°C will require several hundred billion of incremental finance per year and the shifting of trillions of dollars of existing private sector investments into low carbon technologies and solutions.

Emphasising that the commitment by developing countries to provide $100 billion for developing countries will be delivered in the form of new and additional public finance, through budgetary allocations from developed countries, supplemented by revenues from alternative sources of public finance

Emphasising the shortcomings of the main revenue stream for the Adaptation Fund in relation to the expected low price of CERs under the Clean Development Mechanism and the need for new and additional commitments by developed countries.

*********Decides:

1. That developed country Parties shall provide jointly new and additional public finance amounting to an average of US$20 billion annually for the period 2013-2015, for mitigation and adaptation actions, including for REDD, technology and capacity building.

2. That for the periods of 2016-2018 and 2018-2020, developed country parties shall scale up financing in a linear manner from the current levels to reach $100 billion annually in public finance by 2020.

3. That developed countries shall allocate at least 50% of overall public finance to meeting developing country adaptation needs.

4. To establish a formal process to capitalise the GCF with an initial collective pledge of (…)** by COP19.

5. To call on the relevant bodies to design and implement global measures to raise new streams of public climate finance, particularly through:

i) Redirection of at least 100% of Annex 2 fossil fuel subsidies

ii) Carbon pricing mechanisms applied to the international aviation and maritime transport - in accordance with the principal of CBDRRC and existing commitments under the UNFCCC.

********

Welcomes

1. The pledges to the Adaptation Fund of (…)** collectively made by Annex 2 Parties for 2013/2014, as contained in Annex C of this decision, and those made by other Parties.

2. The initial pledges to the Green Climate Fund of (…)** collectively made by Annex 2 Parties as contained in Annex D of this decision.

3. The recent declaration by 11 EU Finance Ministers to earmark at least 100% of the revenue raised through their Financial Transaction Tax to the Green Climate Fund.

Disclaimer

** "there is not enough space on this page to specify the number of billions ECO is expecting"

Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (SBSTA/SBI)

CAN International views on existing institutional arrangements or potential governance alternatives including a body, a board or a committee (matters referred to in paragraphs 34 and 35 of FCCC/CP/2012/L.14/Rev.1, including potential functions, modalities and procedures (FCCC/CP/2012/L.14/Rev.1, paragraph 36).

1. Introduction

CAN welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the work of SBSTA and SBI by giving our views on the matters referred to in paragraphs 34 and 35 of FCCC/CP/2012/L.14/Rev.1, including potential functions, modalities and procedures.

CAN considers that REDD+ should be a key component of the new agreement being negotiated by the ADP. REDD+ can contribute significantly to global emission reductions both in the longer term (ADP workstream 1) and in the shorter term (ADP workstream 2), as well as delivering both biodiversity and social benefits. However, if REDD+ is to deliver significant emission reductions in the short term then much more effort is urgently needed, by both donor and host countries during phases one and two of REDD+.

We agree with paragraph 34 of the Doha decision on REDD+ finance (FCCC/CP/2012/L.14/Rev.1) that there is a need to improve coordination in the implementation of REDD+ activities (paragraph 70 of 1/CP16). We are not, however, convinced that a new REDD+ institution would achieve this aim, certainly not at this stage. We consider that it would be best to decide what needs to be done first and then decide upon how best to do it, via new or existing institutions.

The UN climate talks failed to deliver increased cuts to carbon pollution, nor did they provide any credible pathway to $100 billion per year in finance by 2020 to help the poorest countries deal with climate change, according to the 700 NGOs who are members of Climate Action Network-International (CAN-I).

Two weeks ago, just prior to the start of these negotiations, numerous credible reports were published by an array of well respected scientists, economists and climate change experts, all with essentially the same conclusion - we are currently on an unsustainable path which virtually guarantees the world will be faced with catastrophic effects from climate change, according to Greenpeace International executive director, Kumi Naidoo.

“Two weeks of negotiations have not altered that path and that politicians need to reflect the consensus around climate change through funds, targets and effective action."

WWF head of delegation, Tasneem Essop, said Doha was supposed to be an important element in setting up for a fair, ambitious and binding deal in 2015 and therefore needed to rebuild trust and instill equity.

“These talks have failed the climate and they have failed developing nations,” Essop said. “The Doha decision has delivered no real cuts in emissions, it has delivered no concrete finance, and it has not delivered on equity.”

Governments have delivered a very vague outcome that might lead to increased ambition but only if the politics shift to working for the people, our future, and not the polluters.

In particular, countries including the US, who have continually blocked progress in the talks, need to fundamentally change their positions in line with their obligation to lead on the solution to this crisis that they created.

Tim Gore, International Climate Change Policy Advisor for Oxfam, said Doha had done nothing to guarantee that public climate finance would go up next year, not down.

“Developing countrieshave come here in good faith and have been forced to accept vague words and no numbers,” Gore said. “It's a betrayal.”

Wael Hmaidan, director of CAN-I, said that ministers needed to go back to their capitals and work hard to put concrete proposals on the table for the next talks so that progress could be made towards to secure a fair, ambitious, and binding deal in 2015.

“But we also need people in all regions of the world to demand leadership from their governments on climate change – just like the new youth movement in the Arab region has done.”

The Doha Decision:

An extraordinarily weak outcome on climate finance which fails to put any money on the table or to ensure a pathway to the $100 billion a year by 2020 target. The decision asks for submissions from governments on long term finance pathways, calls for public funds for adaptation but does not mention a figure, and encourages developed countries to maintain funding at existing levels dependent on their economies.

An eight year second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol with loopholes that allow carry over, use and trading of hot air

A call – though not an official ambition ratchet mechanism - for Kyoto Protocol countries to review their emissions reduction target inline with the 25-40% range by 2014 at the latest. While it could have been stronger, the decision reinforces clear moral obligation for countries to increase their emission reduction targets prior to 2020 and provides opportunities for them to do so

An agreed work program on loss and damage to help victims of climate change will start immediately anda decision “to establish institutional arrangement, such as an international mechanism, at COP19”

Developed countries failed to agree a way to account for their carbon in a comparable way

Contacts
Climate Action Network (CAN) is a global network of over 700 NGOs working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.
For more information, please contact CAN International Communications Coordinator Ria Voorhaar, email: rvoorhaar@climatenetwork.org, local mobile: +974 33 38 6907.

About the Climate Action Network

The Climate Action Network (CAN) is a worldwide network of over 950 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in over 110 countries working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.

CAN members work to achieve this goal through information exchange and the coordinated development of NGO strategy on international, regional, and national climate issues. [+]